Yes. I've seen several places in the zoomy map where there are multiple levels of them. These aren't steep slopes. If you look at St Denis (near Mons) on Google Earth you can see its actually relatively flat. These rather eccentric contours that seem like cliffs to our modern eyes were the height of cartographic fashion in Napoleon's day. Thin and barely noticeable lines are their modern descendant.
While I was looking at Google Maps I could see that most of the original buildings have been replaced by more modern houses, but the church is still there, and there's still a graveyard immediately around it. Ironically, the fields in the foreground are still pasture, and the ones on the other side of the road are still arable. Strange that the land should stay so unchanged over the last 250 years, when the buildings are mostly new.
The Ferraris map is astonishingly accurate. It's quite easy to identify everything. The cartographers who drew the map were artists, but their surveyors, who were working without the benefit of satellite imagery and many of the modern surveyor's gadgets, must have been pure geniuses.
Yea, this is why maps is so much more impressive than almost any other kind of art, the work that lies beyond it. Even though not all maps are at that level of accuracy, far from it, when considering the tools of the era, most maps are really impressive.
It is a sharp contrast to todays tools. I see our students outside the building every now and then with all their modern surveying gear, those things contain tools the ancient surveyors (which is about everyone more than a century in the past in this case) would gladly sacrifice their firstborn over.
And now I have this absurd image in my head of Granny Weatherwax flying along on her non-starting broomstick, taking a selfie against the backdrop of the landscape.
Its ok. I've figured it out from the pictures, even though I can't read a word of Dutch or French. Its a primitive smelting furnace. So I will call it a "Smelting site"
A High Forest is a forest with tall trees with a closed canopy which limits the forest floors exposure of sunlight, leading to limited growth down there.
I expect the other kind is a more open-canopy variant which allows for much more greenery an shrubs to grow at the forest floor.
So the forest with scrub is more patchy with an incomplete canopy where shrubs grow in the spaces?
I'm just asking out of curiosity now. I think I lack the full understanding because I've never actually walked through a patch of high forest (not counting conifer plantations in Scotland). I think it is one thing that the UK is a little short of. Even the New Forest area in Hampshire (the closest official forest to where I live) is only forest with scrub by that definition.
EDIT: and you edited your answer to answer this question anyway - while I was asking it
I am not exactly an expert on these matters, but this is how I understand it. Of course, even a high forest will have some open spots, so exactly where to draw the dividing line between those two, I have no idea (I am sure that a proper forest expert would come up with a bunch of categories in between). I do have some patches of high forest not far from my home, and it is sometimes feels weird how devoid the forest floor is of any vegetation.
That also gives a clue, since one type specifically states with scrub, while the other does not. So I think what was meant by high forest is forest so dark there's no undergrowth at all. It's not very common on the Ferraris map. I think most of the forests are forests with scrub.
This is the map key so far. I mean the big one that covers all the necessary fills and so on - not just the ones in this tiny little extract I'm doing.
After all - there's no point in calling it the Ferraris style unless it has all the necessary fills.
[Image_13311]
It looks scruffy right now, but that's because I haven't sorted out the masking yet, so everything is sticking out of the boxes right now.
and... oh look. I've got some of them in the wrong category! LOL!
The categories are somewhat artificial anyway, given most forests and woodlands have been human-managed for many millennia, in some cases creating areas of heathland along the way, for instance.
Thanks for the typo tip. I'll sort that out in a minute. I'm still trying to work out what I thought I was doing putting coalmines and smelting sites under Urban geography instead of Transport and industry. Never mind! I'll get there in the end.
There are fewer fills and symbols in this key than in the official Ferraris key where I have already combined things like 'road' and 'road with trees' into one which will be half with and half without trees. Surprisingly, there really are that many kinds of marsh and meadow. The difference is clear in the fills I haven't yet done.
The categories are mine - to try and order things a little more compared to the original key. Maybe I was just having a hard time trying to read in Dutch and French, but the original key takes ages to identify something you've found on the map. I thought the categories would help a bit.
Shall I take them out and mix everything up again?
Hey, seconds apart, Sue! I was just being facetious about many of the terrain fills looking remarkably similar at present, in fact !
The actual different terrain types as listed make perfect sense, especially from a military perspective. It's the same point about what seem like minor slopes and hills. Even really minor ditches and streams can become of major importance on a battlefield, where forces can use them as areas of safe cover in a relatively flat field, for instance.
Organising a map key is never easy, because different users may want different things. It's a bit tricky trying to hop between the two Atlas Ferraris topics to compare the original book key with your version (mildly helpful link to the other topic), but I'd be inclined perhaps to sort things by whether they're covering large areas of ground (like the Meadow, Forest, Marsh, etc. fills) or consist of specific symbols (meaning in a general hand-drawn map-making sense, not a CC3+ sense) - so things like the various buildings, battle sites, and suchlike. This is really just so it's easier to quickly compare different aspects of what's shown on the final map and identify what the colours/textures/symbols, etc., mean.
Ok. Well, we'll see what it looks like when I've filled in all the little boxes. I'm aiming for 2 a day.
I have to say that the reaction over on the FB page has been a lot stronger than expected. Apparently a lot of wargamers would like to use this style if I make a decent job of it. I think that is why I subconsciously went for the military approach.
Comments
But it's not the whole area that's dark. The colour fades out down the slope.
Wish we had original street view imagery from back then (and for all old maps), that would have provided an incredible insight.
It is a sharp contrast to todays tools. I see our students outside the building every now and then with all their modern surveying gear, those things contain tools the ancient surveyors (which is about everyone more than a century in the past in this case) would gladly sacrifice their firstborn over.
Angels... or witches!
I get 'low oven' or 'basement'. The mark on the map is a very small triangle.
I'm trying to translate the key.
What is the difference between "Forest with scrub", and "High forest"?
I expect the other kind is a more open-canopy variant which allows for much more greenery an shrubs to grow at the forest floor.
So the forest with scrub is more patchy with an incomplete canopy where shrubs grow in the spaces?
I'm just asking out of curiosity now. I think I lack the full understanding because I've never actually walked through a patch of high forest (not counting conifer plantations in Scotland). I think it is one thing that the UK is a little short of. Even the New Forest area in Hampshire (the closest official forest to where I live) is only forest with scrub by that definition.
EDIT: and you edited your answer to answer this question anyway - while I was asking it
I do have some patches of high forest not far from my home, and it is sometimes feels weird how devoid the forest floor is of any vegetation.
This is the map key so far. I mean the big one that covers all the necessary fills and so on - not just the ones in this tiny little extract I'm doing.
After all - there's no point in calling it the Ferraris style unless it has all the necessary fills.
[Image_13311]
It looks scruffy right now, but that's because I haven't sorted out the masking yet, so everything is sticking out of the boxes right now.
and... oh look. I've got some of them in the wrong category! LOL!
[I'll leave it to some other person to comment on the apparent similarity of many of the terrain types... Oops; no I won't! ;D]
Hello Wyvern
Thanks for the typo tip. I'll sort that out in a minute. I'm still trying to work out what I thought I was doing putting coalmines and smelting sites under Urban geography instead of Transport and industry. Never mind! I'll get there in the end.
There are fewer fills and symbols in this key than in the official Ferraris key where I have already combined things like 'road' and 'road with trees' into one which will be half with and half without trees. Surprisingly, there really are that many kinds of marsh and meadow. The difference is clear in the fills I haven't yet done.
Shall I take them out and mix everything up again?
The actual different terrain types as listed make perfect sense, especially from a military perspective. It's the same point about what seem like minor slopes and hills. Even really minor ditches and streams can become of major importance on a battlefield, where forces can use them as areas of safe cover in a relatively flat field, for instance.
Well at present everything is a bit the same :P
Yes, I can see how Napoleon found these maps so very useful.
I have to say that the reaction over on the FB page has been a lot stronger than expected. Apparently a lot of wargamers would like to use this style if I make a decent job of it. I think that is why I subconsciously went for the military approach.